About your Search

20130506
20130514
SHOW
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 58
CSPAN 42
CNNW 33
FBC 21
CSPAN2 16
KNTV (NBC) 16
KQED (PBS) 10
KGO (ABC) 9
KPIX (CBS) 7
KRCB (PBS) 6
COM 5
KDTV (Univision) 5
SFGTV 5
KCSM (PBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 330
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 337 (some duplicates have been removed)
front page story titlelied "from spy to source to convict" describing his involvement in the cia officer for leaking information to a reporter. >> scott shane back in january, you had something unusual front page in the "new york times" where you led the paper not with a per se news story but something you've been working on for a long time. start to fill us in on what this is about. >> this was a very unusual story. one of them was that the new york times allowed me to write it in the first person which was the only way i would be able to write it because i was involved in the story. normally i would have to recuse myself and they agreed to my pitch that there was an unusual story about journalism and how journalists cover national security topics and this was the best way to tell it. essentially it was a story of john kiriakou former cia officer who was a source for me and for any number of national security reporters around washington. after he retired from the cia. and now through a lot of twist and turns, he ended up being the first cia officer to be in prison for leaking cl
of john kiriakou former cia officer who was a source for me and for any number of national security reporters around washington. after he retired from the cia. and how through a lot of twist and turns, he ended up being the first cia officer to be in prison for leaking classified information to the american press. never happened before and now he's in federal prison in pennsylvania. >> part of your story starts with interview in 2007, brian ross of abc. got just a 30 second clip so our viewers can catch up with john kiriakou looks like and kind of a sense what he was talking about. [video clip] at the time i felt that waterboarding was something we needed to do. as time passed and has september 11th has moved farther and farther back into history, i think i changed my mind. i think waterboarding is probably something we shouldn't be in business of doing. >> why do you say that now? >> because we're americans and we're better than that. >> at the time you didn't feel that way? >> at the time i felt so angry and i wanted so much to help disrupt future attacks in the united states and
report you mentioned builds on reporting of the weekly standard, and an early cia draft of these talking points stated, and i quote, the agency has produced anymore rouse pieces on the threat of extremist links to al qaeda in benghazi in eastern libya. there have been at laos five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi including the june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. all that raised red flags for state department spokeswoman victoria newland who dashed off an e-mail to her enter agency colleagues saying, quote, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. so why would we want to feed that? concerned, unquote. when the revised talking points still included links to one group, she sent off another e-mail warning we don't want to prejudice the investigation. however, an as yet unidentified national security council told newland the fbi did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple mineor suggestions. >> the back and forth between us and the cia in this regard. public affairs officer or spok
you declare them dead, you could be wrong. >> we look at the cia's not so secret assassination program. >> we're in a war. and war is hell. >> and enhanced interrogations. did they lead to osama bin laden? are our current interrogation tactics working? >> the site i visited was probably the grimmest place i've ever been. >> then, tracking terror. how do intelligence officials target a lone wolf? >> there's a whole bunch of things, certainly technically possible but do you really want your government doing that? >> shut up. >> and it's not just a movie. two of the actual women in the hunt for bin laden take us inside the cia. >> when you think of 007, you know, you don't think of jane bond, you think of james bond. >>> and, last, my own thoughts on confronting terror today. >>> defining the enemy and understanding the threat. what does al qaeda look like today? it's been called al qaeda 2.0. a more decentralized organization than the one that attacked us on september 11th, 2001. loosely made up of affiliates and hangers on like al qaeda and and the islamic -- allocate ka and the peninsu
no fewer than 12 times, omitting reverends to a cia warning at the time of an al qaeda threat. what made this difference from fox reporting on this is that now everybody is reporting on this, and giving the press secretary of the united states a lot heat and questioning on this now. back to this. >> raises the objections to the fact the cia had warned bat terror threats in benghazi prior to the attacks. those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house, based on -- >> no first of all, they weren't at the direction of the white house. the only -- the process, as everybody is an equal player -- said everybody's concerns have to be listened to and taken into account. ultimately these were intelligence community talking points that intelligence community, led by the cia -- john, can i finish? -- that the intelligence community has to sign off and believes represents the intelligence community's view about what they knew about what happened. again, this would be more significant if we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely i
the new digital age sunday morning at 10:45. on c-span 3, former chief c.i.a. analysts on cold war intelligence during the eisenhower administration. that is sunday at 3:00. >> next the white house briefing with press secretary jay carney earlier today. a major topic of discussion was the report on benghazi. it says the c.i.a. talking points used by susan rice were revised by the state department to remove any references to terrorism. carnie discusses the acknowledge by the i.r.s. that they unfairly audited groups for their tax status. his briefing is about an hour. >> good friday afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i appreciate your patience. before i take your questions i want to note because it has been reported we did as many of you know, have a background briefing here earlier at the white house. i think 14 news organization were represented from online, print and the like. we do those periodically. we hope that the participants find them helpful. no one here thinks that is a substitute for this briefing that is why i'm here to take questions and with th
now reporting that the white house tried to hide the facts about benghazi. in fact, cia information was altered. we will talk with the abc news reporter who broke the story. >> is the president claims that it was appropriate to keep that information away. >> the language of that email is pretty clear. that is not a stylistic -- that ♪ saying gel adjustment. that is a major, dramatic change. >> information. >> as the benghazi story heats up, the white house is under fire. we'll show you what happened in the press conference today. >> hey, john, john, it's chris. hey, john, john, it's chris. >> there is that guy again. >> governor chris christie mocking himself with famous people. gutfeld and mcguirk will try to explain what the heck is going on. >> are you kidding me? >> caution, you are about to enterth enterth s no spin z. the factor begins right now. >> hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. the benghazi story heats up. that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. if there is one guy you would not want to be today, it was white house spokesman jay c
house, the state department and the cia was about talking points -- how to talk about the tragedy on tv, what to say, what not to say. to quote former secretary of state hillary clinton, what difference at this point does it make? well, to those involved in this investigation, trying to track down how the attack happened in the first place and how the story was then wrongly told at first, it makes a lot of difference. it's where we begin tonight with our chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. good evening. >> reporter: good evening, brian. the e-mails we have been shown prove what the white house first said about not being involved in the benghazi talking points is just not true. in fact, the state department and the white house were far more involved in watering down the benghazi talking points than they have been saying for months. the benghazi tragedy quickly turned into what insiders call a knife fight between the state department in charge of the mission where ambassador chris stevens and information specialist sean smith died. and the cia which ran a separate outpost
and the state department on the cia talking points. >> but again i think you are forgetting a couple of things here. the whose as i said made maid one minor change to the talking points drafted by and produced by the cia. >> concern was concern about how congress would react a factor in the talks? >> if you look at the development of the talking points, the answer to that is no. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made were stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> i appreciate the question again and what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to the other. >> these were concerns raised by the state department that the white house direct the interagency process to, to use in making the talking points. >> i think again. >> the original version included references to al-qaeda and references to islam. the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threa
on the right. we now have e-mails showing the state department pushed back on talking points from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here. but these were not stylistic changes. these were content changes. so again, what role did the white house play? not just in making it but in directing changes. >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what that. who was responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, to the cia, the cia began a process of investigation points that could be used in public by members of congress. by members of that committee. and that process as is always the case, again, led by the cia involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or a stake in the process. that would include the state department since it was a state department facility that
led by the cia -- john, can i finish? you had a long time there. >> adding to the drama. the prescheduled press conference was delayed twice. carney finally arrived at the podium three hours later than first planned. a lot of tension in the room when he walked in. why? because a lot was at stake, everyone. today we formally learned that the white house and the state department were heavily involved in the editing of the talking points used by the administration following the attacks in benghazi. something they previously denied. in fact, today jay carney doubled down saying the white house made only one edit, changing the word consulate to the word diplomatic post. the thing is there were 12 rounds of edits. among the first thing taken out of the draft is islamic extremists with ties with al qaeda participated in the attack. jim acosta who you just stlau was in the room asking questions and he's "outfront" tonight. that was an intense press briefing. we don't usually see them like that. >> that's right, erin. and i think that's because of what the white house said back i
and islamic extremist and the warnings the cia provided about how dangerous benghazi had become. all scrubbed, scrubbed, scrubbed. so now abc reports on it and expands on it in john karl's defense he did a good job. so now it's news. people are getting a little nervous. you add to that the whistleblower testimony this week on capitol hill. those three state department employees taking an oath to tell the truth on what happened during that night of terror on september 11th that left four americans dead. and now they are coming under attack. gregory hicks, one of the main wednesdays may already be paying the price. he says he was reassigned after he questioned what susan rice told america on the sunday talk shows to a low level desk job. he did not believe what she told us and now we know he had cause for his concerns and now he has been demoted. our own james rosen presented the state department or pressed, i should say, the state department ahead of mr. hicks' testimony, listen to this exchange from monday. >> are greg hicks and mark thompson credible people? are they not long-standing career
that the cia and is using drones. the cia drone program is secret is one of the worst kept secrets in the world. it's undermined by a legitimacy to make that claim. but it takes us to the question of how are we using this weapon or any other weapon? helicopter airships have also been used to carry out the program of targeted killing. that is the heart of the debate. know is deeply troubling. i think there is general agreement among its international law scholars that the use of lethal force is permissible under international law, and human-rights law, in response to a specific concrete and imminent threat. in the law of war context, when you are in an armed conflict, it would be permissible against civilians who are directly participating in hostilities, as those terms are defined under the laws of war and as long as other requirements are met. what has been made public in speeches by administration officials -- and i do appreciate that the speeches have been made -- alice well as the white paper that was first leaked -- is that those are not the standards being applied. if you look at the whit
frustration at obama administration's revolve from references from the al-qaeda that the c.i.a. prepared the day before. >> i respect that the people who spoke up in the course of these hearings. you know, they were there. they felt the horror of that terrorist attack. and obviously it's emotional, but i hate to see it turned into a pure prolonged, political process that really doesn't tell us anything new about the facts. >> reporter: separately, abc news jonathan carl reports having obtained 12 versions of the benghazi talking points. according to that report, an early c.i.a. draft listed inferences about warnings about deteriorating situation in benghazi. victoria newland emailed her colleagues. early draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. why would we want to feed that either? when the revived document still included references to the culpability 6 a group, they sent another email, we don't want to prejudice the f.b.i. investigation. at that point, abc said that national security council official pushed back telling newland the f.b.i. did not ha
al qaeda affiliate. and mentioning previous cia warnings about extremists in benghazi. in the end, officials dropped both references from the final version. the state department spokeswoman also added, quote, these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership. it's unclear if that leadership included then secretary of state hillary clinton. the attack on september 11th of last year killed our u.s. ambassador to libya christopher stephens. state department official sean smith and two former navy seals tyrone woods and glen doherty. our james rosen live in our d.c. newsroom with more on this. james? >> pretty rough day for jay carney at the white house. >> that's right, harris. his was to be sure uninvisible duty today. the white house press secretary struggling to explain why interagency team labor day through 12 versions of the now infamous talking points that u.n. ambassador susan rice delivered on the sunday shows september 16th, five days after the attacks. spontaneous protest gone awry and later shown to be false never more so than now when the drafts of
. in an attempt to address those concern, cia officials cut all references to ansar al sharia and made minor tweaks. but in a follow-up e-mail, new land wrote that the problem remain that her superiors, he she didn't say which ones were unhappy. the changes she wrote did not resolve all my issues. you suggest she's playing politics with the aftermath of all of this. but chairman, didn't the cia and the intelligence community have the final word on what the accurate talking points would be? >> no. not at all. if you keep pushing back, you get a first report from the cia, that's their report. then you push back. you get a little different. you push back, you get a little different. that's manipulating the cia to get the truth. >> the cia can't stand up for itself and get the facts, saying, these are the facts? >> the fact is, there was a fact witness, his name was ambassador stevens. he said greg, we're under attack to his number two. that was the definitive statement from the ambassador on the ground before he was murdered. you have a fact witness. and you follow that up with fact witness aft
the house overidentityoversight committee said the process had forced the c.i.a. to back off its claims. >> that's manipulating the c.i.a. >> john: because the c.i.a. is so easy to push around. on friday presidential press secretary jay carney insisted the white house role had been small. >> the only edit made by the white house or the state department to those talking points generated by the c.i.a. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post. >> john: but arizona senator john mccain wouldn't buy it. >> for the president's smoke man to say that, well, there was only words or technical changes made in those e-mails is a flat-out untruth. i'd call it a cover-up. i would call it a coverup in the extent that there was willful removal of information which was obvious. >> john: for more, i'm very honored to welcome back to "viewpoint" thomas pickering ambassador what a pleasure it is to have you on the show. >> thank you john, it is nice to be back with you. >> thank you, and we enjoyed watching you
with human intelligence, the c.i.a. and other were able to alk through the varies provinces and -- various provinces and talk to people. they cannot do that anywhere in north korea. i have met some people who are unning a special university. king jong-un allowed to run. they were very intelligent people and educated mostly in science and technology. politics out of -- outside of it. they came and talked to us and we asked questions. the only thing he could talk out were the few people they met in that compound. the few people they met outside, they had no stories to tell at all. they haven't been outside. they cannot talk about north korea in general. that's the situation. now, the people of east asia -- asia often criticize western medicine because they observe symptoms and they true to cure it. an ave a headache, take aspirin. get rid of the symptoms and the fundamental symptoms that caused the headache still remains. i think we might be doing the same thing here. we are gattering information and trying to do something about the symptom but what is the real cause? why is it not happenin
to ansar al sharia, raise ed objections to the fact the cia warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack. those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on -- >> no, they weren't. first of all -- the only -- this process, everybody is an equal player in this process, says everybody's concerns have to be listened to and taken into account. but ultimately, these were intelligence community talking points that the intelligence community, led by the cia, had -- >> changed because of objection. >> john, could i finish? you had a long time there. that the intelligence community has to sign off on and believe represents the intelligence community's view of what they knew at that time about what happened. and, again, this would be more significant if we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely involved, that we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that it could very well have been ansar al sharia that was involv involved, al qaeda, itself, or other al qaeda affiliates. this is an effort to accuse the admin
drafted entirely by the cia. and that neither hillary clinton's state department nor the white house made anything more than stylistic changes. >> the single adjustment of these two institutions were changing the words consulate to diplomatic facility. >> reporter: but today, abc news has exclusively obtained 12 versions of the talking points, showing they went through extensive edits. the early drafts pointed to evidence that an al qaeda-affiliated group took part in the attack and that the cia had warned of al qaeda threats in benghazi. secretary clinton's spokesperson objected, saying in an e-mail obtained by abc, that the information, quote, "could be abused by members of congress to beat up on the state department for not paying attention to warnings. so, why would we want to feed that?" after those objections were raised, all references to al qaeda and the cia warnings were deleted from the cia talking points. cia original version included references to al qaeda. those were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft. >> and the cia wrote another draft -- >> reporter: based on i
in which the state department and cia battled over what will be made public. why was there a battle? as we now know at least 12 separate drafts of the talking points initially requested by the house intelligence committee. the cia first draft included language saying islamic extremists with ties to ala cada participated in the attack and referred to cia warnings, describing at least five other attacks in foreign interest in benghazi by unidentified surveillance. but a career diplomat that worked for republican and democratic administrations objected. "why are we encouraging members of congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation. what was the state department's motivation? the state trying to spare political criticism after the attack. did it feel the cia was too heavy handed for not protecting benghazi when most of the personnel there were attacked to the cia and not state. were state and the white house trying to keep the fact that there was a cia outpost in benghazi hidden as long as possible. the
was behind that? the white house says not them. the cia began. the cia in this case deputy director of the cia. the cia. >> alisyn: well, this morning we will separate fact from fiction for you. >> and if the dead boston bomber was buried in your backyard, how would you feel about that? >> i'm a christian jesus says love your enemy. >> i'm disgusted. i think it's disrespectful. >> fierce debate taking place in a town near you. and targeting the tea party and conservatives. the irs admitting they did it and now they say they are sorry. but is the apology accepted? we report, you decide. "fox & friends" hour one starts right now. get the coffee. >> alisyn: good morning, everybody. good morning, guys. clayton morris, good morning. >> get the coffee this morning. probably glad at the white house that it's the weekend right now. no more white house press briefings that they have to deal with like whew, we get a few days off from the press grilling us over the latest benghazi news. >> it's not just fox. the story that this network almost alone has kept in the news for the past five months
department pushed back against talking point language from the cia, and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. you have said the white house made a stylistic change here, that these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes. so, again, what role did the white house play, not just in making but directing changes? >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this, i think is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was under way to find out what happened, who was responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, two of the cia -- the cia began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of congress, by members of that committee. and that process, as is always the case, led by the cia, involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in our stake in the process and that would include obviously the state department since it was a state department facility that was attacked and amba
is from the cia and that was expunged. what does that tell you? >> well, i think it shows that the intelligence community was well aware of what's going on and that the state department really with a more political motive in mind was trying to keep it out. we know from other e-mails that the department's senior leadership was involved in looking at these talking points. and it's this quote you've read is significant and another piece of evidence that the administration's latest spin, you know, this is just bureaucratic turf fighting is wrong. normally it's the cia that's trying to keep information from being made public, to protect sources and methods of intelligence gathering. what happened here is clearly that the cia well understood what was up, as did the state department's own employees on the ground in benghazi, and it was higher levels of authority back here in washington that were trying to put a different cast on the facts. >> finally, ambassador, should there be a select committee to investigate this? >> i think absolutely. we've learned a lot just in the past fe
and said they were made for purely political reasons. she objected to this cia references to al qaeda groups as well as cia warnings about terrorist threats in the months preceding the september 11th attack. one e-mail said "the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress ought to be dip the state department for those were not paying attention to warnings so why would we want to be that? >> and those references were scrubbed she noted the changes did not resolve all of my issues of the building leadership. that being of course, secretary of state hillary clinton. "the weekly standard" steve it pays one negative stephen hays that petraeus was shocked when he reread the talking points as the original c.i.a. assessment was blocked to call it an attack from islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda. jay kearney today responded to the new revelations of a lengthy and testy press briefing where he continuously tried to point* the finger away from president obama. >> it was the state department. >> this process everybody is unequal players said ever buddies concerns have to be list
and produced by the c.i.a. even prior to that had very few input on it. the other discussions that went on prior to this in an interagency process reflected the concerning of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue. >> kimberly: dana perino, your . >> hi, greg. quite a day. it reminded me a little bit of what it was like to be in the white house briefing room, in particular the u.s. attorney scandal but i don't remember being under the gun like jay carney was today. they would like to think this briefing will solve everything and everyone there will continue to move on and pretend that benghazi never happened. however, i do think that the hearing the coverage, the additional information built on the steven hayes report from the weekly standard that we talked about last friday, built upon by jonathan carl of abc news who found that there were 12 iterations. two main things i think what remain to be answered but there are others, first is, what of the things that the white house says they did not want to speculate early on. except that they speculated and blamed the youtube vi
about their inquiry that critics say came up short. the new push stems from revelations that the cia's original talking points used by ambassador susan rice in the days after the attack had undergone significant edits by senior administration officials. former defense secretary robert gates, meanwhile, is defending the administration's handling of the attacks in libya. >> based on everything i've read, people really didn't know what was going on in ben ghazi contemporaneously. and to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, i think, would have been very dangerous and, personally i would not have proofed that -- approved that because it is sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. the one thing that our forces are noted for are planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. and there just wasn't time to do that. >> of course, willie, we are not talking here
narrative saw a focus on the cia talking points used by susan rice in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. the reason rice was going nuts on those talking points eight months after the fact is thanks to a new detail on abc news that those were revised 12 times and edited before they arrived on the sunday shows. they were made with input from the state department, and at least one of those edits was apparently designed to make it harder for members of congress to, quote, beat up the state department. in other words, some people working inside the government and in politics edited some talking points to protect themselves politically. and if that is a scandal in washington, then every single blackberry is a d.c. crime scene. it should not come as a surprise that republicans are trying to drive the new cycle into a frenzy over the full cycle they've been trying to manufacture over the benghazi talking points for months now. the real question is why are they making a big deal over the fake benghazi scandal than they are the real scandal over the irs having targeted certain groups? and the ans
the administration believed that this was a terror attack, the cia analysis, the intelligence analysis that it was a cia attack, that did not appear in the end. what we've learned in some of the negotiations, if you will, over e-mail, victoria nuland and jake sullivan of the state department raised concerns and said some things according to our sources who reviewed those e-mails, concern about naming an al qaeda affiliate before they were able to talk about that publicly, concerns about how it might be played politically on the hill, one phrase was "beat the state department for not taking heed of early warnings" those kinds of things and in the end a source tells me that cia director at that time david petraeus received the final version, looked at it and said "just as soon not use it. it doesn't even include that we had warned about what was going to happen in cairo," those other events. >> from the state department, chris, their perspective is, this is one of the e-mails, nuland writing on friday, as the bodies were coming back and hillary clinton and the president were at andrews a
. if you look at. so comments, some the military folks, the cia folks were highly impressed that the diplomats were willing to take risk to help rescue or comrades this was shocking. where did it come from? if you look back at the white house in particular, dennis mcdonough who is now the white house chief of staff was at that time the deputy of the national security council pulled together a meeting along with bin roads and others which is probably where this -- i think we don't have the proof yet, we need to get it but d where some of these very bad and dangerous decisions were made and where the coverup really had its genesis. >> governor huckabee: we don't know where the president really was. he had one phone call that night. no photos of him in the situation room. no indication, no even white house official coming and saying the president was monitoring this from the situation room from the oval office or even from the residence. we have no idea. what his engagement and involvement was. now,o general, a lot of accusations have come from democrats saying that this is all
a of that up tonight with former c.i.a. operative michael sawyer who led the bin laden unit and thomas mcnerney and congressman robert lotta on the losing war on tracking and the crush the keystone pipeline. someone inside the obama white house is issuing threats and intimidating employees of the state departmental that wishes to share critical information. fox news chief washington correspondent james rosen has our report. >> state department pushed back against charges first aired on fox news alleging that benghazi whistleblowers have faced threats and intimidation. >> we do have to look at the issue and de-politicize it. american people deserve answers. i'm determined there will be an accountable and open state department. >> the state department would never tolerate sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue. that is an obligation we take very seriously. >> president obama professed to be aware of loaning standing efforts to question survivors of the benghazi attack in which terrorists killed the u.s. ambassador to libya and three other americans. >> i'm not familiar wit
, but maybe i am wrong. >> that used to be the thing. i can't join the cia and i can't be president. all of those things i did in my senior year in albania. no -- it is a horrible job to be a politician. that's why it is heavily populated by horrible people. who wants that job? you gave wiener a -- sanford a pass and weaner is a [bleep], but the fact of the matter is not only was he caught, but he lied about it. >> and it was a weird lie. >> appalachian trail? two things that outraged everyone during this was that there was a politician who lied and was misusing taxpayer dollars. >> he said he was a guy that slept on a cot in his office and was so fiscally responsible. >> ya, with the argentine yen woman. >> there is a lot of kids that will not go to the appalachian trail because it has been sheared by infidelity. i won't hike there. >> here is the good news. most on the appalachian trail don't don't know what be smir of means. >> why do you have t.o. smear an entire -- why do you have to smear an entire group of people? >> let's not over look everything here. as creepy and awful as wien
they would to preserve their honor and dignity and the cia guys, i respect them. they put their lives on the line and they don't get an opportunity to tell the families what they have done. will they tart breaking and telling their stories? >> i think the next set of hearings will bring in the military people and cia people and ask the questions like you asked. i am tired of seeing the cia get beat up. they live under such a cloud of secrecy. and they are good people and honorable people and the cia would not have left them behind. i know them too well. there has to be more hearings and we are calling for a bipartisan commission and bring in the military and cia people and get to the bottom of this. >> i hope it happens. general, thank you. and christian, you having first- hand knowledge. >> the family members of the benghazi victims get the answers they wanted in the hearings? i will ask the mother of shawn smith next. [ bell dings ] [ crowd cheering ] . syst >> the fact is, we have four dead americans, was it because of a protest or guys out for a night deciding to kill americans, w
their honor and dignity and the cia guys, i respect them. they put their lives on the line and they don't get an opportunity to tell the families what they have done. will they tart breaking and telling their stories? >> i think the next set of hearings will bring in the military people and cia people and ask the questions like you asked. i am tired of seeing the cia get beat up. they live under such a cloud of secrecy. and they are good people and honorable people and the cia would not have left them behind. i know them too well. there has to be more hearings and we are calling for a bipartisan commission and bring in the military and cia people and get to the bottom of this. >> i hope it happens. general, thank you. and christian, you having first- hand knowledge. >> the family members of the benghazi victims get the answers they wanted in the hearings? i will ask the mother of shawn smith next. if you're suffering from constipation, miralax or metamucil may take days to work. or faster relief, try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax provides gentle relief overnight unlike miralax and metam
. michele: then today, reports that the c.i.a. talking points on the benghazi attacks were changed a dozen times in a series of small -- in a series of email exchanges between the white house, the c.i.a., and the state department. leading to questions about what the administration knew and when. this afternoon, the white house tried to explain how and why those were edited. >> just remember that these are talking points. not policies. talking points. to this day have been shown to be wrong in only one instance. and that was the existence of demonstrations preceding the attack. and so all of this, from the beginning, the republican attempts to politicize this, has been based on that single thing which we corrected once we knew that it was no longer a correct description of what happened. michele: so peter, let's begin with those talking points. what changed over the course of those 12 edits in all of those email exchanges? >> exactly. jay carney today said only one thing turned out to be wrong. what he didn't say is what was left out. what changed between the initial version and the final v
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 337 (some duplicates have been removed)